Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends ...
66
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends Monitoring of Urban Streams in Clark and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower Columbia River Region Clark County, Lead Implementing Entity September 2020
Transcript of Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends ...
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends
Monitoring of Urban Streams in Clark and Cowlitz
Counties in the Lower Columbia River Region
Clark County, Lead Implementing Entity
September 2020
ii
Publication Information
Each study conducted for the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) must have an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This QAPP describes the objectives of the
Status and Trends Monitoring of Urban Streams in Clark and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower
Columbia River Region (LCUS) study. This QAPP describes the procedures to be followed to
achieve the objectives for water quality, sediment chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate, physical
habitat, and continuous parameter monitoring that will be conducted by Clark County. The
LCUS study will be funded and using pooled contributions from all of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater (MS4) Permittees located in
Clark and Cowlitz Counties, in the Lower Columbia River Region.
The final completed QAPP is available at: https://www.clark.wa.gov/public-works/stream-
health-and-monitoring
Data for this project will be available on Ecology’s Environmental Information Management
(EIM) website: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eimreporting/default.aspx and from Clark County’s
LCUS Project Manager, Chad Hoxeng at [email protected]; 1-564-397-4018. In EIM,
search on Study ID: SAM_LCU
Author and Contact Information
Jeff Schnabel1, Chad Hoxeng1 and Marlena Milosevich1 based on prior work by Jody Lando2,
Derek Booth2, Jim Medlen3 and Keunyea Song4
Clark County Public Works
PO Box 9810
Vancouver, WA 98666-9810
1 Clark County Public Works Clean Water Division 2 Stillwater Sciences 3 Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program 4 Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program
Cover photo: Longview, WA - Penny Postcard, Lewis and Clark Bridge, ca. 1930
Any use of product or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the authors, Clark County, or the Department of Ecology.
iii
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for
Status and Trends Monitoring of Urban Streams
in Clark and Cowlitz Counties
in the Lower Columbia River Region
September 2020
Approved by:
Signature:
Date:
Jeff Schnabel, LCUS Principal Investigator, Stormwater Infrastructure Manager,
Clean Water Division, Clark County
Signature: Date:
Chad Hoxeng, LCUS Project Manager, Natural Resource Specialist III, Clean
Water Division, Clark County
Signature: Date:
Marlena Milosevich, LCUS Monitoring Coordinator, Natural Resource
Specialist III, Clean Water Division, Clark County
Signature: Date:
Keunyea Song, SAM Scientist, Ecology WQP PDS
Signature:
Date:
Brandi Lubliner, Ecology WQP Quality Assurance Coordinator
Signature:
Date:
Noosheen Pouya, Ecology Permit Manager
Signature:
Date:
Howard Holmes, ALS Kelso, Contract laboratory project manager
Signature:
Date:
Robert Wisseman, Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc., Contract laboratory project
manager
Signatures are not available on the Internet version.
1
1. Table of Contents
1. Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 1
2. Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
Scope of this Quality Assurance Project Plan............................................................................. 7
4. Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 7
Project Goal ................................................................................................................................ 7
Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 8
5. Organization and Schedule ..................................................................................................... 9
Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 9
Training and Certifications ....................................................................................................... 10
Reports and Deliverables .......................................................................................................... 11
6. Experimental Design ............................................................................................................. 13
Study Area Description ............................................................................................................. 13
Sampling Site Selection ............................................................................................................ 13
Sampling Site Identification and Confirmation ........................................................................ 20
Sampling Parameters and Frequency ........................................................................................ 21
Landscape Information ............................................................................................................. 23
7. Measurement Quality Objectives .......................................................................................... 27
Field Work ................................................................................................................................ 27
Laboratory Selection ................................................................................................................. 27
Data Quality Indicators for Each Parameter ............................................................................. 28
8. Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................................ 31
Field Equipment Handling ........................................................................................................ 31
Field Safety ............................................................................................................................... 32
Field Safety in Wadeable Streams ............................................................................................ 32
Field Work Procedures ............................................................................................................. 33
Field Log ................................................................................................................................... 34
9. Quality Control ..................................................................................................................... 35
Field Equipment Decontamination ........................................................................................... 35
Field Replicate Samples ............................................................................................................ 35
Sample Storage and Preservation.............................................................................................. 36
Quality Control for Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................... 38
2
Laboratory Quality Control Procedures .................................................................................... 39
10. Data Management .............................................................................................................. 42
EIM and WHM Database Preparation ...................................................................................... 42
Field Data Collection and Transfer ........................................................................................... 42
Laboratory Data ........................................................................................................................ 42
Watershed Health Data ............................................................................................................. 43
Data Storage .............................................................................................................................. 43
11. Data Verification and Validation ....................................................................................... 44
LCUS Field Lead ...................................................................................................................... 44
LCUS Project Manager ............................................................................................................. 44
Laboratory Data Verification .................................................................................................... 45
12. Data Usability and Data Analyses ..................................................................................... 46
Data Quality (Usability) Assessment ........................................................................................ 46
Determining if Project Objectives were met ............................................................................. 46
Treatment of Non-Detects in Data Analysis ............................................................................. 46
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 46
Adaptive Management of this QAPP ........................................................................................ 47
13. Reporting............................................................................................................................ 49
Review of Reports..................................................................................................................... 49
Distribution of Reports ............................................................................................................. 49
14. Audits ................................................................................................................................. 50
15. References .......................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A: Procedure for Conductivity Maintenance, Calibration, and Fouling Drift ......... 53
Appendix B: Monitoring Site Set-Up Field Form .................................................................... 56
Appendix C: Health and Safety Plan ........................................................................................ 57
Appendix D: Monitoring Site Field Form ................................................................................ 63
3
List of Figures Figure 1. Map of urban stream monitoring study boundaries in the Lower Columbia River Basin.
......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and study boundaries in the Lower
Columbia River Basin. .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 3. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and associated drainage catchments in Clark
County. .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and associated drainage catchments in
Cowlitz County. ............................................................................................................................ 19
List of Tables Table 1. Titles and responsibilities of project staff. ...................................................................... 10 Table 2. List of required reports and data entry, due dates, and descriptions. .............................. 12 Table 3. Location for all sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark
and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower Columbia River Region. ...................................................... 14
Table 4. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) imperviousness data and drainage area for all
sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in
the Lower Columbia River Region. .............................................................................................. 15 Table 5. Trend and status sampling locations and date of active monitoring. .............................. 16 Table 6. Parameters and sampling frequency at active status and trend sites for the base and
extended monitoring programs. .................................................................................................... 22 Table 7. Standard Operating Procedures. ..................................................................................... 23
Table 8. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) for all drainage areas for sites selected for
status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in the Lower
Columbia River Region. ............................................................................................................... 25 Table 9. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) for 50-foot riparian buffer areas for sites
selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in the
Lower Columbia River Region. .................................................................................................... 26 Table 10. Laboratories selected for sample processing. ............................................................... 28
Table 11. Measurement quality objectives for continuous parameters. ........................................ 28 Table 12. Measurement quality objectives for extended water quality parameters. ..................... 29 Table 13. Measurement quality objectives for sediment parameters. ........................................... 29
Table 14. Typical timing of on-site field activities for wadeable streams. ................................... 34 Table 15. Field quality control schedule for water quality, sediment, and benthic
macroinvertebrate samples. ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 16. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times. .................................................... 38
Table 17. Schedule for laboratory Quality Control samples. ........................................................ 41
4
2. Abstract
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) details Status and Trends Monitoring of Urban
Streams in Clark and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower Columbia Region (Lower Columbia Urban
Streams, LCUS, hereafter) as part of Stormwater Action Monitoring (SAM) program. SAM is
the regional stormwater monitoring program option in the Phase I and the Western Washington
Phase II Municipal Stormwater permits (herein, permits).
This LCUS study is funded by the Permittees in Clark and Cowlitz Counties who chose to the
permit options to collaborate and contribute funding via SAM pooled funds managed by Ecology
as a Private-Local Account for regional this receiving water status and trends monitoring.
The Permittees participating in this project are Clark and Cowlitz Counties; the Cities of Camas,
Longview, Vancouver, Battle Ground, Kelso, and Washougal; and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Clark County is performing the study under an
Interagency Agreement (IAA) with Ecology.
This status and trends study is designed to answer the question, “Are regional conditions in
receiving water quality and biota improving in concert with broad implementation of required
stormwater management practices?”
The LCUS study will follow the protocols developed for the on-going statewide stream health
monitoring program-Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery
(WHSR) for physical habitat and biological measurements. To better capture the stormwater
related hydrologic and water chemistry changes, this study will monitor water level, temperature
and conductivity continuously for one full water year from each sampling site.
This QAPP ensures quality data collection, analysis, reporting, and management of the
monitoring program to answer this question.
5
3. Introduction
The 2013 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater
(MS4) Permits included a new regional stormwater monitoring program (Stormwater Action
Monitoring, or SAM) that includes effectiveness studies, source identification projects, and
status and trends monitoring in stormwater receiving waters. The purpose of the status and trends
monitoring is to answer the policy question: “Are regional conditions in receiving water quality
and biota improving in concert with broad implementation of required stormwater management
practices?” Ecology worked with stakeholders in the Lower Columbia Region during the 2013
permit cycle to develop a receiving water monitoring study that would be implemented in the
2019 permit cycle. The permittees in the Lower Columbia Region are: Clark and Cowlitz
Counties; the Cities of Camas, Longview, Vancouver, Battle Ground, Kelso, and Washougal,
and; WSDOT.
The LCUS is a separate, stand-alone status and trends regional monitoring study, as part of the
SAM program.
The study boundaries (Figure 1) are the permit areas in the Lower Columbia River region,
including the urban and urbanizing areas of the jurisdictions of Clark and Cowlitz Counties, and
the cities of Camas, Longview, Vancouver, Battle Ground, Kelso, and Washougal.
In 2012, the City of Longview received a grant from Ecology to assist in the development of the
broad LC HSTM effort. Background information and the foundational monitoring design for this
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was agreed upon in a collaborative effort by the Lower
Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB), the City of Longview, the other permittees, Ecology,
and other Lower Columbia River Basin (Program) partners including but not limited to:
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management
• Cowlitz Tribe
• Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP)
• U.S. Forest Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Washington Department of Natural Resources
Most of the LC HSTM is focused on areas outside of urban areas, and on salmon habitat and
recovery efforts. The Program partners’ main goal was to develop a stakeholder integrated
approach to monitor status and trends throughout the Lower Columbia River Region. The initial
work focused on the Washington State partners, however these partners have interest in
coordinating with efforts in Oregon State.
6
Figure 1. Map of urban stream monitoring study boundaries in the Lower Columbia River Basin.
7
Scope of this Quality Assurance Project Plan This study focuses on streams in the urban and urbanizing areas and is intended to answer the
stormwater management question: Are regional conditions in receiving water quality and biota
improving in concert with broad implementation of required stormwater management practices?
This QAPP provides the basis for the LCUS regional receiving water monitoring study. This
QAPP outlines the required guidance and protocols to be followed in measuring indicators with
sufficient precision and statistical rigor to adequately characterize the status and trends of small
urban streams. The QAPP includes roles and responsibilities for the initial study lead (Clark
County) and study partners. This QAPP includes:
• Study design, goals and objectives
• Sampling and measurement procedures
• Type of data and information needed
• Quality of data needed
• Quality control (QC) and assessment procedures
• Data management and interpretation procedures
This QAPP is modified from subsections of: the draft LC HSTM QAPP (Stillwater, 2016a), and;
Status and Trends Monitoring of Small Streams in the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion QAPP
(Lubliner, 2014). In addition to the reports, data, and other deliverables articulated in this QAPP,
the LCUS monitoring results can also be integrated into larger regional monitoring efforts
including the broader LC HSTM effort to assess the status and trends of stream habitat
conditions across the Lower Columbia River Basin. That work to integrate LCUS into the LC
HSTM may be conducted separately by regional partners and is outside the scope of this QAPP.
4. Project Overview
Project Goal The goal of this study is to characterize chemical, biological, hydrological and habitat attributes
of urban and urbanizing streams in Clark and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower Columbia River
region, and to assess trends over time.
This QAPP includes a set of “base” and “extended” status and trend indicators. All “base”
indicators will be collected to provide an understanding of urban stream health conditions across
the project area and to answer questions about status and changes in regional stream conditions
over time. Extended parameters, if collected, will add information to the base monitoring to
inform local stormwater management decisions and the public as to broader urban stream health
and water quality conditions.
The monitoring objectives and questions for this study were developed as part of the LC HSTM
monitoring implementation plan (Stillwater Sciences, 2016a), for the Urban-Area Water Quality
and Quantity component.
8
Objectives
Objective 1- What are the status and trends of water quality and hydrology in surface waters
draining subwatersheds that are primarily within urban and urbanizing areas under the
jurisdiction of municipal stormwater NPDES permittees?
1. a In streams within these areas, evaluate the status of water-quality conditions and
determine if conditions are supportive of watershed-specific beneficial uses
identified in WAC 173-201A-602.
1. b In streams within these areas, evaluate whether measured water-quality metrics
show statistically significant trends over time.
Objective 2- What are the status and trends of water quality, hydrology and in-stream
biological health that are subject to stormwater discharges from urban areas first developed
under requirements of the 2013 municipal stormwater permits which were implemented
January 8th, 2016 (recognizing that such areas are limited and will likely require
opportunistic selection from the larger population of sites identified for Objective 1)?
2. a Evaluate status of measured water-quality, hydrology metrics, and in-stream
biological health in those subwatersheds that have experienced measurable land-use
changes while under provisions of the 2013 (and later) municipal stormwater
permit.
2. b In the sample population of Objective 2.a, evaluate whether measured water-
quality, hydrology metrics and in-stream biological health show statistically
significant trends over a 10-year period in those subwatersheds that have
experienced measurable land-use changes while under provisions of the 2013 (and
later) municipal stormwater permit.
Objective 3- What are the status and trends of in-stream biological health, sediment quality
and in-stream/riparian habitat conditions that are primarily within urban and urbanizing areas
under the jurisdiction of NPDES permittees?
3. a In streams within these areas, evaluate the status of biological and habitat
conditions according to applicable habitat metrics.
3. b In streams within these areas, evaluate the status of sediment quality in comparison
to sediment chemistry standards (e.g., sediment cleanup objective, cleanup
screening level) or to appropriate reference conditions.
3. c In streams within these areas, analyze for statistically significant spatial and
temporal trends in biological, habitat metrics and sediment quality.
9
5. Organization and Schedule
Roles and Responsibilities Clark County will lead the LCUS monitoring study under an IAA with Ecology. The other
permittees will contribute to the SAM pooled funding account and provide ancillary data for
analyses and additional assistance as needed to support the monitoring conducted at streams in
watersheds areas within their jurisdictions. Table 1 lists the titles and responsibilities of project
staff.
10
Table 1. Titles and responsibilities of project staff.
Training and Certifications The monitoring team members and staff will assist with coordination and procurement of
equipment and supplies. Monitoring team members must complete all required and necessary
training for field work and safety.
Staff Title Responsibilities
Jeff Schnabel
Clark County
Chad Hoxeng
Clark County
Marlee Milosevich
Clark County
Bob Hutton
Clark County
Ben Joner
Clark County
Keunyea Song
Ecology Water Quality Program
Brandi Lubliner
Ecology Water Quality Program
Jack Janisch
Ecology EAP Section
Howard Holwes
ALS, Kelso
Robert Wisseman
Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc.
Reviews the draft QAPP and approves the final QAPP.Ecology QA
Coordinator
Coordinates with LC Urban Streams Project Manager to upload of WSH
data to required databases.
Watershed Health
Data Coordinator
Monitoring
Coordinator and LC
Urban Streams Field
Lead
Reviews the project scope and budget, tracks progress, reviews the
draft QAPP, and approves the final QAPP. Oversees all field work and
ensures crew safety.
Reviews draft QAPP and coordinates with ALS Quality Assurance
Coordinator as needed.
Reviews draft QAPP and coordinates with ABA Quality Assurance
Coordinator as needed.
LC Urban Streams
Principal Investigator
Contract Laboratory
Project Manager
Contract Laboratory
Project Manager
LC Urban Streams
Field Assistant
Helps make field measurements, collect samples and prepare them for
shipping, manage continuous data, maintain instruments, and record
field information.
LC Urban Streams
Data Coordinator
Coordinates upload of data to required databases with the
Environmental Information Management database (EIM) Data
Coordinator.
Finalizes the QAPP. Oversees field sampling and transportation of
samples to the laboratory. Conducts QA review of data. Analyzes and
interprets data. Oversees entry of data into EIM. Writes the draft report
and final report. May also serve as Field Lead.
Oversees all LC Urban Streams project staff and serves as the program
liaison to the SAM Scientist.
LC Urban Streams
Project Manager
SAM Scientist
Manages the contract between Ecology and Clark County. Coordinates
Ecology review of the QAPP and reports. Approves the final QAPP and
all required deliverables.
11
LCUS Field lead, crew members, and other key staff will participate in a field-based training for
watershed health sampling provided by Ecology’s Environmental Assessment Program. These
trainings are held each year prior to the first summer stream benthos, sediment chemistry, and
watershed health sampling event. This activity involves hands-on training at a field monitoring
site to ensure comparability of results for monitoring efforts.
Any necessary training for software uses and programs related to field monitoring, data analysis
and data submittal will be completed before monitoring and throughout the monitoring period as
needed. Training should be ongoing as needed as staff changes. As technology advances, new
data collection/QA/analysis tools may improve the study implementation.
Reports and Deliverables Clark County will prepare and submit reports as outlined in the IAA with Ecology. Table 2
below lists expected reports and data submittals for the LCUS over the life of the project.
12
Table 2. List of required reports and data entry, due dates, and descriptions.
Report Type/Title Target date Description
Final QAPP 30-Jun-20
Revised completed QAPP, responsive to all comments from
Ecology’s MS4 NPDES Permit Manager and inclusive of approved
site verification report and extended monitoring report tables.
Watershed Health
Training
Spring 2020 and as needed
thereafter for new staff
Statement of field staff trained to prepare for upcoming year of
monitoring.
LC Urban Streams
Annual Reports
May 31 each year beginning
in 2022
Annual data summary report with tables and figures summarizing
results for the prior water year. The results include status
assessments; identifying spatial and other patterns; and analyzing
natural and anthropogenic indicators that explain variability (see
Section 12.4).
LC Urban Streams
Status and Trends
Reports
May 31 each year beginning
in 2025
Beginning after 4 water years of data collection, in addition to the
annual monitoring reports, a report summarizing: all prior status
assessments; trend assessment for trend sites; identification of
spatial and other patterns; and analysis of natural and
anthropogenic indicators that explain variability.
Entry of Study ID and
monitoring locations
into EIM
31-Dec-20 Sampling location coordinates and descriptions entered.
Entry of bilogical data
into PSSBAnnually
All quality assured and quality controlled lab data and modified
version for data analysis if necessary.
Entry of laboratory
results into EIMAnnually
All quality assured and quality controlled lab data and modified
version for data analysis if necessary.
Upload of continuous
data and flow
indicators to EIM
Annually
Quality assured and quality controlled finalized data; pressure or
temperature corrected data; and all calculated flow indicators. After
the first year, this may be done less frequently if approved by
Ecology.
Memo summarizing
need and justification
for change to any
aspect of this
monitoring program
As need is determined by the
LC Urban Streams Principal
Investigator and Program
Manager
Submit for Ecology approval. Stakeholder discussion and agreement
may be needed to proceed with recommended changes determined
to be substantive, i.e. , to the study design approach or parameter
list.
Monitoring preparation reports
31-Jan-20
Memo summarizing activity related to updating Table 6. Final site list
and detailed information including exact coordinates and landscape
information. Detailed reasons given for any locations changed or
sites disqualified from the study. Assignment of sites as either
status or trend, and planned dates of active monitoring.
31-Mar-20
Memo summarizing MS4 Permittee discussions about project budget
and prioritizing extended parameter sampling plans and other
activity related to updating Tables 7 and 11. Final list of extended
monitoring parameters that will be collected during the five-year
study.
Status and trends reports
Data Entry or Upload to Indicated Database
Adaptive Management Reports
Site verification report
and final Table 6 and
Figure 2
Extended monitoring
report and final Tables 7
and 11
Annual monitoring reports
13
6. Experimental Design
Study Area Description The study includes the urban and urbanizing areas of the Phase I and Phase II municipal
permittees in Lower Columbia Region (Figure 1). All of these areas are in the Willamette
lowlands ultimately draining to the Lower Columbia River.
For nearly two decades, the MS4 Permits issued to cities, counties and WSDOT have required
permittees to reduce stormwater runoff and pollutants through the development and
implementation of stormwater management plans (SWMPs) using new approaches to improve
the permittees’ management of discharges to and from MS4 to reduce flows and contaminants.
Under permit requirements, Clark and Cowlitz Counties, the Cities of Camas, Longview,
Vancouver, Battle Ground, Kelso, and Washougal, and WSDOT are implementing measures to
promote stormwater stewardship through public awareness, new local ordinances and
development standards, and operate the MS4.
Sampling Site Selection LCUS sites and their associated Clark County site codes are listed in Table 3.
Sampling sites are needed for both status assessment and trend assessment. For this study, 22
sites have been selected; five sites that will be visited for annual monitoring throughout the study
period (called trend sites hereafter) and 17 sites that will be monitored for a single year within a
five-year sampling cycle under a rotating panel design (called status sites hereafter).
Approximately 20% of the status sites will be monitored each year during the five years of the
permit cycle. Note that sampling sites including trend sites and status sites will be used for
annual status assessment.
Site selection criteria included:
• Each candidate stream reach/segment should have a predominant urban land cover (based
on 2016 National Land Cover Dataset) greater than 25% urbanized in the contributing
watershed.
o Growth Management Act (GMA) designated urban areas, which could include
non-urban areas, were also considered as counting toward the urban percentage.
• Each candidate stream reach/segment should have a watershed drainage area between 0.5
and 70 square kilometers (km2).
A total of 24 candidate stream segments that generally meet the selection criteria were identified.
Two sites are designated as alternate sites and will only be monitored if any site becomes
unsuitable for monitoring in the future.
Several preexisting local sampling sites (the “legacy sites” of Clark County and the City of
Vancouver) meeting these criteria were included given their preexisting data and known
accessibility.
14
Six legacy sites are incorporated in this study:
• Trend sites: Cougar Creek (CGR020) and Mill Creek (MIL010)
• Status sites: Curtin Creek (CUR020), Gee Creek (GEE050), Whipple Creek (WPL065),
and Brezee Creek (BRZ010)
Table 3. Location for all sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz Counties in the Lower Columbia River Region.
Clark County
Site Code LAT LONG
Burnt Bridge Creek BBC050 45.63469 -122.62404
Campen Creek CMP010 45.57714 -122.31537
Cougar Creek CGR020 45.70744 -122.68277
Mill Creek MIL010 45.73306 -122.62757
Westover Creek WST020 46.16571 -122.92018
Allen Caynon Creek ALN040 45.8499 -122.72033
Cold Creek CLD010 45.66208 -122.66797
Currie Creek CRE010 45.62874 -122.43926
Curtin Creek CUR020 45.72227 -122.59089
Dwyer Creek DWY020 45.63247 -122.46157
Fisher Creek FSH020 45.59223 -122.48811
Gee Creek GEE050 45.79967 -122.77063
Indian Creek IND010 46.16535 -122.96877
LaLonde Creek LAL040 45.7072 -122.6378
McCormick Creek MAC050 45.85124 -122.69182
Packard Creek PCK010 45.75019 -122.71132
Rockwell Creek RCW010 45.71838 -122.63949
Suds Creek SUD010 45.70957 -122.66999
Tenny Creek TEN055 45.69352 -122.6513
Whipple Creek WPL065 45.73754 -122.69249
Woodburn Creek WBN030 45.60404 -122.38679
Woodin Creek WDN010 45.7427 -122.54663
Brezee Creek BRZ010 45.8606 -122.66966
Morgan Creek MOR005 45.75739 -122.50696
Stream
Tre
nd
Sit
es
Stat
us
Site
sA
lte
rnat
e
Site
s
15
National Land Cover Data (NLCD) Imperviousness data (2016) for LCUS sites are listed in
Table 4.
Table 4. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) imperviousness data and drainage area for all sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in the Lower Columbia River Region.
Trend sites and sampling year of status sites are selected based on the size of drainage area and
impervious surface cover of the drainage area of sites to ensure each year sampling event to
cover broad range of urban development and represent the study area well (Table 5).
Clark
County Site
Code
% Impervious
Watershed
Drainage Area
(km2)
Burnt Bridge Creek BBC050 86.0 22.0
Campen Creek CMP010 47.4 5.3
Cougar Creek CGR020 97.1 7.5
Mill Creek MIL010 50.0 30.1
Westover Creek WST020 51.9 3.3
Allen Caynon Creek ALN040 31.1 9.6
Cold Creek CLD010 99.4 6.1
Currie Creek CRE010 42.8 6.6
Curtin Creek CUR020 78.8 21.0
Dwyer Creek DWY020 58.8 12.8
Fisher Creek FSH020 66.0 2.9
Gee Creek GEE050 34.8 24.0
Indian Creek IND010 29.1 1.0
LaLonde Creek LAL040 98.6 3.8
McCormick Creek MAC050 21.7 10.6
Packard Creek PCK010 33.2 6.0
Rockwell Creek RCW010 99.6 1.7
Suds Creek SUD010 99.6 2.0
Tenny Creek TEN055 98.9 2.4
Whipple Creek WPL065 69.6 12.1
Woodburn Creek WBN030 31.9 2.9
Woodin Creek WDN010 54.2 17.7
Brezee Creek BRZ010 14.6 8.5
Morgan Creek MOR005 44.6 19.5
Stream
Tre
nd
Sit
es
Stat
us
Site
sA
lte
rnat
e
Site
s
16
Table 5. Trend and status sampling locations and date of active monitoring.
Sample site locations for the Lower Columbia region and their permit coverage area are shown
in Figure 2.
Drainage areas for the LCUS sites are delineated in Figures 3 and 4. Drainage areas were
delineated based on GIS topography contours and mapped stormwater conveyances, as well as
site reconnaissance. Impervious areas within the watershed draining and infiltrating to ground
water and not discharging to the stream are not included in drainage areas.
Clark County
Site Code
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
10/1/24-
9/30/25
Burnt Bridge Creek BBC050 x x x x x
Campen Creek CMP010 x x x x x
Cougar Creek CGR020 x x x x x
Mill Creek MIL010 x x x x x
Westover Creek WST020 x x x x x
Allen Canyon Creek ALN040 x
Curtin Creek CUR020 x
Packard Creek PCK010 x
Dwyer Creek DWY020 x
Woodburn Creek WBN030 x
Suds Creek SUD010 x
Fisher Creek FSH020 x
Woodin Creek WDN010 x
Cold Creek CLD010 x
Whipple Creek WPL065 x
Indian Creek IND010 x
McCormick Creek MAC050 x
Lalonde LAL030 x
Rockwell Creek RCW010 x
Tenny Creek TEN055 x
Gee Creek GEE050 x
Currie Creek CRE010 x
Brezee Creek BRZ010
Morgan Creek MOR010
Alternative sites will be monitored only if any future status
site become unsuitable for monitoringAlt
ern
ate
Site
s
Stream
Tre
nd
Sit
es
Stat
us
Site
s
17
Figure 2. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and study boundaries in the Lower Columbia River Basin.
18
Figure 3. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and associated drainage catchments in Clark County.
19
Figure 4. Map of urban stream monitoring locations and associated drainage catchments in Cowlitz County.
20
Sampling Site Identification and Confirmation Each stream segment/reach was visited by Clark County and Ecology staff and evaluated for
suitability before finalizing (Table 5). Each segment/reach was evaluated and will continue to be
based on these sampling suitability criteria:
• Accessibility: Address concerns of whether landowners permit access to a site, whether
the site can be accessed safely and relatively quickly for sampling throughout the year.
o If a candidate site is not obviously accessible through public property, contact and
obtain access permission from the private property owners and/or tenants whose
property will need to be accessed.
o A site may be deemed unsuitable or impractical for sampling if more than one
hour is required to safely access the site from the nearest parking location.
• Safety conditions: Assess safety conditions for access and sampling based on state and
federal law and organizational policy. It is ultimately the responsibility of the field crew
during the site evaluation and at each subsequent time of arrival to decide whether it is
safe to access the site and conduct the sampling. Appropriate reasons for disqualifying a
site from sampling may include: flow that is too swift or too deep; unstable route of
entry; presence of hostile people or animals.
• Water flow: Determine that the waterbody has a net flow of water that is unidirectional
and perennial. Streams subject to backwater from the Columbia River are not considered
suitable sampling sites for this program. Confirm uninterrupted surface-water flow for
more than half the length of approximately 20 bankfull widths or a minimum of 150
meters surrounding the candidate site coordinates.
• Substrate: Verify presence of predominantly natural substrate in the reach.
• Streambank: Confirm that both the left and right banks of the water body are readily
discernible from mid-stream.
• Human influence: Observe whether flow is in a natural channel or, if highly modified,
confirm the modification was not constructed (such as canals, ditches, or pipelines).
Monitoring sites will not be located immediately downstream of MS4 outfalls or other
point sources.
• Location confirmation: Identify sampling reaches and site locations with GPS
coordinates and with a narrative description of their location (e.g., East Fork Lewis River,
extending 1,500 meters upstream from the NE 82nd Avenue/Daybreak Road bridge).
Having both GPS coordinates and a narrative description will provide redundancy and
insure that the sampling reaches can be re-located. Clark County will enter all of the sites
in its field location site data base and GIS layers.
21
Sampling Parameters and Frequency Monitoring program indicators and metrics were determined as part of the LC HSTM monitoring
development process led by the City of Longview, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, and
Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (Stillwater Sciences, 2016a and 2016b).
This LCUS study includes two different groups of indicators and metrics, referred to as the base
and extended programs. A “base” program (Table 6) focuses on continuous temperature,
conductivity and stage monitoring, as well as yearly measurements of benthic macroinvertebrate
populations, physical habitat, and sediment quality. The “base” program will be fully
implemented at all sites. An “extended” program may be implemented if there is available
funding. The “extended” program adds water quality monitoring of nutrients, metals, and
bacteria to the base program. Potential water quality parameters that may be collected as part of
the extended program are listed in Table 6.
Continuous monitoring for temperature, conductivity and water level (stage) will be performed
using applicable sensors and data loggers for both trend sites and status sites. Equipment will be
deployed permanently at trend sites, and for one water year (October through September) during
each five-year cycle at status sites. Sufficient equipment will be procured to allow deployment
prior to the upcoming water year at the next set of status sites in the rotating panel.
Measurements for continuous parameters will be logged at 15-minute intervals between October
1st and September 30th. All sites will initially be visited monthly for continuous data retrieval
and equipment maintenance. Visit frequency may be adjusted as the project proceeds but will
occur at least every other month.
Benthic macroinvertebrates and sediment chemistry samples will be collected for scheduled
monitoring sites once during the summer between July 1 and September 30, beginning in 2021.
Water quality samples selected for sampling under the extended program may be collected
monthly or quarterly.
Watershed Health monitoring will follow standard operation procedures for field measurement
and sampling using WHM eforms. Standard Operating Procedures Table 7.
22
Table 6. Parameters and sampling frequency at active status and trend sites for the base and extended monitoring programs.
[1] PAH compounds include: 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b,k) fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
fluorene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, and retene.
Indicator/Parameter Indicator TypeSampling Frequency at Active Status
and Trend Sites
Temperature
Conductivity
Stage Hydrology
Sediment Metals
(As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn)
Sediment Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocabons (PAHs)1
pH
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Solids (TS)
Nitrate+Nitrite (NO3+NO2)
Total Phosphorous (TP)
Ammonia (NH3) as (N)
E.coli
Dissolved Copper (Cu)
Dissolved Zinc (Zn)
Hardness
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Chloride
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Base Program
Extended Program
Water Quality Monthly or quarterly every year of
sampling
Continuous
(15 - Minute)
Watershed Health
Sediment Quality
Every year of sampling (July-Sep)
using Washington State Department
of Ecology WMH eforms
Once every year of sampling
(July-Sep)
Once every year of sampling
(July-Sep) Benthic macroinvertebrates
Water Quality
Watershed Health Indicators Physical Habitat
23
Table 7. Standard Operating Procedures.
Standard Operation Procedures Ecology
Publication No.
Standard Operating Procedure EAP109, Version 1.1: Watershed Health
Monitoring: Estimating Stream Discharge (Narrow Protocol) 19-03-226
Standard Operating Procedure EAP122, Version 1.1: Measuring Stream Slope
(Narrow Protocol) 19-03-218
Standard Operating Procedure EAP123, Version 1.1: Measuring Compass
Bearings (Narrow Protocol) 19-03-217
Standard Operating Procedure EAP112, Version 1.1: Assessing Bank Erosion
Vulnerability 19-03-215
Standard Operating Procedure EAP121, Version 1.1: Watershed Health
Monitoring: Standard Operating Procedures for Counting Large Woody Debris. 19-03-214
Standard Operating Procedure EAP095, Version 1.2: Collecting Water Samples for
Watershed Health Monitoring 19-03-216
Standard Operating Procedure EAP073, Version 2.3: Minimum Requirements for
the Collection of Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Streams and Rivers 19-03-211
Standard Operating Procedure EAP108, Version 1.10: Collecting In Situ Water
Quality Data 19-03-206
Standard Operating Procedure EAP107, Version 1.0: Measuring Transect
Coordinates with a Global Positioning System (GPS) 18-03-230
Standard Operating Procedure EAP114, Version 1.3: Standard Operating
Procedure for Estimating Substrate Sizes and Embeddedness at Major Transects 18-03-229
Standard Operating Procedure EAP106, Version 1.8: Standard Operating
Procedures for Verification and Layout of Sites (Narrow Protocol) 18-03-226
Standard Operating Procedure EAP120, Version 1.3: Standard Operating
Procedure for Quantifying Habitat Units 18-03-225
Standard Operating Procedure EAP118, Version 1.3: Standard Operating
Procedure for Visual Assessment of Human Influence 18-03-224
Standard Operating Procedure EAP119, Version 1.3: Standard Operating
Procedure for Thalweg Profiling 18-03-223
Standard Operating Procedure EAP117, Version 1.2: Standard Operating
Procedure for Assessing Riparian Vegetation Structure 18-03-222
Standard Operating Procedure EAP115, Version 2.1: Standard Operating
Procedure for Measuring Riparian Cover Using a Convex Densiometer 18-03-220
Standard Operating Procedure EAP113, Version 1.7: Watershed Health
Monitoring: Measuring Channel Dimensions 18-03-219
Standard Operating Procedure EAP070, Version 2.2: Minimize the Spread of
Invasive Species 18-03-201
Landscape Information Geospatial data will be collected to assess landscape characteristics of sampling sites and
surrounding areas. Data includes metrics describing land use/land cover, human stressors, and
physical characteristics. The 2016 National Land cover Data Set (NLCD) (www.mrlc.gov),
digital elevation models (DEM), and national Watershed Boundary Dataset are basic sources for
many of these metrics. Landscape metrics will be calculated at both watershed and riparian
scales.
24
Watershed boundaries of each sampling site were delineated using ArcGIS topography contours
and mapped stormwater conveyances, as well as site reconnaissance. Mapped stream data was
clipped to watershed boundaries and included stream data from USGS, Clark County and
Department of Natural Resources. Riparian buffer zone boundaries were determined using a 50m
buffer from mapped center of the streamlines for each site.
Landscape information will be collected once every five years for all status and trend sites
starting with the 2016 NLCD. This information will be used to evaluate the effects of land use
patterns on stream health and whether any land-cover changes are occurring at measurable rates
across the region over time.
Environmental characteristics describing physical and anthropogenic characteristics of the study
region will be identified in the watershed and riparian zone around each sampling site. These
variables include basin geology, watershed size, slope, land cover, elevation, urbanization (e.g.,
population density, impervious surface, road density, etc.), and other applicable or available
landscape information.
NLCD (2016) data for LCUS sites are shown in Table 8.
NLCD (2016) data for all riparian areas within a 50-foot buffer from stream centerline for LCUS
sites are shown in Table 9.
25
Table 8. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) for all drainage areas for sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in the Lower Columbia River Region.
Stream
Clark County
Site Code Barren Land
Cultivated
Crops
Deciduous
Forest
Developed,
High Intensity
Developed,
Low Intensity
Developed,
Medium
Intensity
Developed,
Open Space
Emergent
Herbaceuous
Wetlands
Evergreen
Forest Hay/ Pasture Herbaceuous Mixed Forest Open Water
Perennial
Snow/Ice Shrub/ Scrub
Woody
Wetlands
Total Area
(km2)
Burnt Bridge BBC050 0.0 1.2 0.1 10.7 29.3 34.7 11.3 1.1 1.5 7.8 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 21.97
Campen Creek CMP010 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.6 16.1 11.2 19.6 0.0 9.5 25.4 1.1 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.1 5.35
Cougar Creek CGR020 0.0 0.1 1.8 12.4 39.1 32.2 13.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.47
Mill Creek MIL010 0.0 0.1 1.3 1.3 17.4 7.7 23.6 0.9 2.4 39.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.0 2.4 2.2 30.10
Westover Creek WST020 0.2 0.0 31.2 0.0 26.7 6.1 18.8 0.0 5.3 0.5 0.2 6.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.9 3.32
Allen Caynon Creek ALN040 0.0 0.1 3.5 1.8 13.2 4.9 11.1 0.6 5.0 51.9 0.7 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.9 2.7 9.58
Cold Creek CLD010 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 41.2 24.4 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.08
Currie Creek CRE010 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 16.1 1.4 25.1 0.7 9.8 39.4 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 6.56
Cutin Creek CUR020 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.3 36.1 14.8 24.6 1.4 0.6 16.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 21.04
Dwyer Creek DWY020 1.8 0.2 5.2 4.7 22.2 19.4 12.4 3.1 1.7 21.0 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 1.5 4.5 12.76
Fisher Creek FSH020 0.6 0.0 7.7 7.9 21.2 28.3 8.9 3.5 2.3 9.1 1.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.9 2.94
Gee Creek GEE050 0.1 0.5 3.6 1.0 14.0 3.3 16.6 0.5 3.6 49.7 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 24.05
Indian Creek IND010 0.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 16.1 1.5 11.7 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.96
LaLonde Creek LAL040 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 47.3 23.5 24.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.82
McCormick Creek MAC050 0.0 2.5 9.5 0.7 8.6 1.9 10.4 0.2 3.9 56.5 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.1 10.57
Packard Creek PCK010 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.1 16.4 0.8 15.9 0.0 4.9 41.2 0.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 6.02
Rockwell Creek RCW010 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 34.3 33.2 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.68
Suds Creek SUD010 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.6 42.8 40.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.96
Tenny Creek TEN055 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 45.5 32.6 17.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.40
Whipple Creek WPL065 0.0 0.0 7.6 3.6 26.4 19.7 19.9 0.7 1.4 12.6 0.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.4 12.10
Woodburn Creek WBN030 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 11.1 1.3 19.3 0.6 5.4 57.0 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 2.2 2.91
Woodin Creek WDN010 0.0 0.1 3.6 1.9 21.4 10.0 21.0 0.6 10.6 18.4 0.7 3.9 0.1 0.0 3.8 3.9 17.67
Brezee Creek BRZ010 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.1 5.2 2.6 6.7 0.1 12.7 36.1 0.9 7.4 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.2 8.51
Morgan Creek MOR005 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.1 16.1 1.1 27.2 0.5 18.4 21.9 1.1 4.1 0.1 0.0 3.9 3.0 19.52
Percent Land Cover data for drainage areas for stream monitoring locations from National Land Cover Database (2016)
Tre
nd
Sit
es
Stat
us
Site
sA
lte
rnat
e
Site
s
26
Table 9. 2016 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) for 50-foot riparian buffer areas for sites selected for status and trend monitoring of urban streams in Clark and Cowlitz counties in the Lower Columbia River Region.
Stream
Clark County
Site Code Barren Land
Cultivated
Crops
Deciduous
Forest
Developed,
High Intensity
Developed,
Low Intensity
Developed,
Medium
Intensity
Developed,
Open Space
Emergent
Herbaceuous
Wetlands
Evergreen
Forest Hay/ Pasture Herbaceuous Mixed Forest Open Water
Perennial
Snow/Ice Shrub/ Scrub
Woody
Wetlands
Total Area
(km2)
Burnt Bridge BBC050 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.4 28.9 9.0 27.6 5.8 4.2 16.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.51
Campen Creek CMP010 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.1 11.3 0.8 34.7 0.0 10.1 7.5 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.33
Cougar Creek CGR020 0.0 0.7 22.4 5.4 22.9 9.3 35.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.14
Mill Creek MIL010 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.2 8.9 1.7 34.3 4.8 3.4 30.1 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 12.1 0.79
Westover Creek WST020 0.0 0.0 42.1 0.0 15.8 2.6 18.0 0.0 6.9 1.1 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 0.39
Allen Caynon Creek ALN040 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.1 9.0 0.9 12.2 2.0 6.7 44.4 1.2 7.5 0.5 0.0 1.1 8.8 0.88
Cold Creek CLD010 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 51.0 14.6 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09
Currie Creek CRE010 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 8.2 0.0 18.8 2.9 15.4 35.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.4 0.23
Cutin Creek CUR020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.2 17.8 10.1 0.0 58.1 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 5.2 0.18
Dwyer Creek DWY020 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.3 17.0 5.9 18.7 9.6 5.0 24.8 2.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.5 0.46
Fisher Creek FSH020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 1.9 12.6 12.5 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.2 0.06
Gee Creek GEE050 0.0 0.3 8.1 0.1 7.6 1.3 13.3 2.1 5.7 39.7 0.1 5.6 0.1 0.0 1.5 14.6 1.92
Indian Creek IND010 0.0 0.0 53.7 0.0 17.4 1.9 10.5 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.11
LaLonde Creek LAL030 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.9 72.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11
McCormick Creek MAC050 0.0 1.3 18.3 0.0 4.4 0.7 7.6 1.0 5.3 44.8 0.3 4.2 0.1 0.0 1.7 10.3 0.95
Packard Creek PCK010 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 7.6 0.1 15.2 0.0 7.6 25.4 0.2 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 8.6 0.38
Rockwell Creek RCW010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.1 84.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03
Suds Creek SUD010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.4 3.8 47.4 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05
Tenny Creek TEN055 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 50.4 12.6 36.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05
Whipple Creek WPL065 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 10.3 2.8 23.7 6.0 2.2 3.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 34.0 0.46
Woodburn Creek WBN030 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 5.2 0.3 32.4 1.1 8.4 38.7 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.06
Woodin Creek WDN010 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.2 14.4 2.0 30.5 1.8 11.3 12.6 0.0 5.7 0.8 0.0 4.3 9.8 0.58
Brezee Creek BRZ010 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.1 2.6 0.9 6.3 0.4 8.9 24.5 1.0 11.1 0.3 0.0 8.5 0.8 0.91
Morgan Creek MOR005 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 7.7 0.2 26.5 0.8 27.0 11.9 0.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 13.5 1.01
Percent Riparian 50ft Buffer Land Cover data from National Land Cover Database 2016
Tre
nd
Sit
es
Stat
us
Site
sA
lte
rnat
e
Site
s
27
7. Measurement Quality Objectives
Measurement quality objectives are to obtain sufficient high quality data based on site specific
measurements and samples to meet the study objectives. Data quality indicators include
precision, bias, sensitivity, representativeness, comparability and completeness.
Field Work Field staff will follow standard documented protocols, reporting requirements and quality control
(QC) procedures to meet the study measurement quality objectives. Field staff will make a good
faith effort to collect field data at the described frequency in this QAPP.
Completeness of data collection for this study has a goal of 100%. If an extended or base
parameter sample or measurement (excluding continuous measurement parameters) is initially
missed, a second good faith effort will be made to collect these data within the same month. If a
second attempt is also unsuccessful for the same parameters, a third attempt is optional. The
impact of missing continuous data will be evaluated and could be addressed with estimated data
(qualified) based on relationships with continuous data for the same parameter from nearby sites.
Reasons for missed sampling events or missed parameters will be recorded. Any missed
sampling events will be reported to the Ecology SAM Scientist.
Sample loss will be minimized using sturdy sample storage containers and adequate labeling
procedures. Complete data acquisition and storage will be supported using established meters
and data logging systems.
Comparability of measurements between field crews will be supported by following standard
protocols and methods. Before the first sampling of each year, the project manager will organize
a training session to help ensure all field crews follow the standard protocols.
Representativeness of results for sites and the region can also be expressed by following
consistent field and laboratory procedures. Measurements and samples taken in the field need to
be representative of the condition and should be consistent over time. To ensure the
representativeness of samples, field collection and measurements should be uniform in terms of
timing, locations, and hydrologic conditions. Sample holding time requirements are also
important to maintain the representativeness of samples. Any changes or differences of sampling
conditions from protocols will be recorded in the field log.
Precision of samples and field measurements will be evaluated using QC sample duplicates and
repeat measurements.
Laboratory Selection Multiple laboratories will be needed to ensure sample completeness and final selected
laboratories are listed in Table 10. Laboratories for the water and sediment parameters must have
current accreditation status with Ecology (https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-
certifications/Laboratory-Accreditation) and must have the ability to achieve acceptable limits of
28
detection for the parameters monitored as part of this project. The laboratory selected for the
stream benthos samples must provide data to the species level.
Table 10. Laboratories selected for sample processing.
[1] Ecology does not currently have an accreditation process for laboratories that analyze benthic invertebrate
samples.
Data Quality Indicators for Each Parameter
Selected laboratories and in-situ field probes will follow Ecology approved methods and data
quality control (QC) (see section 9). Acceptable methods, bias, precision and accuracy are
detailed in Tables 11 and 12. Methods follow Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater (www.standardmethods.org) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA, or EPA) methods (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/methods_index.cfm).
For continuous parameters (stage, temperature, and conductivity), the accuracy and instrument
bias measurement quality objectives (MQOs) of each electrode meter and/or sensor will be
verified through post-deployment calibration checks following the manufacturer’s procedures.
The sensor’s accuracy and precision will be evaluated by in-situ measurements using hand-held
probes at the deployment, during each sampling event and data retrieval (Table 11). Field meter
measurements will be used to first correct continuous data for linear drift, cleaning or a constant
offset. The amount and frequency of continuous instruments excessive drift or non-random drift
(predominantly higher or lower than handheld meter readings) will be used to evaluate
replacement of continuous meter probes.
MQOs for water and sediment chemistry data are listed in Table 12 and Table 13.
Table 11. Measurement quality objectives for continuous parameters.
1317 South 13th
Avenue
Kelso, WA 98626
3490 NW Deer Run Street
Corvallis, OR 97330-3111Aquatic Biology Associates
1 Stream benthos (641) 762-1668
Analytical Purpose Address Phone
ALS EnvironmentalWater samples
Sediment samples(360) 501-3364
Laboratory Name
29
Table 12. Measurement quality objectives for extended water quality parameters.
*In-situ measured parameters follow manufacturer's guidelines for meter calibrations and operations
[1] The relative percent difference (RPD) must be less than or equal to the indicated percentage for values that are
greater than 5 times the reporting limit.
[2] For inorganics, the Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines state that the spike recovery limits do not apply
when the sample concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of 4 or more (EPA, 2010)
[3] MQOs are based on Hallock (2012) and SOP EAP033 (Swanson, 2007).
Table 13. Measurement quality objectives for sediment parameters.
Campbell CS547A ± 0.4 degree C ± 0.4 degree C
Hobo U24 ± 0.4 degree C ± 0.4 degree C
Campbell CS547A ± 10 % ± 10 %
Hobo U24 ± 3 % ± 3 %
Campbell CS451 ± 0.02 feet ± 0.02 feet
Hobo MX2001-01 ± 0.02 feet ± 0.02 feetStage
Continuous
ParametersMeter Type
Accuracy (deviation
between measurements)
Precision (% relative
standard deviation)
Temperature
Conductivity
Reporting limit
target
Field Replicate
(RSD)
Lab replicate
(RPD)¹
Matrix spike²
(% recovery)
Control
standard/
surrogate
(% recovery)
Matrix spike²
(% RPD)
Control
standard/
surrogate
(% RPD)
Sensitivity PrecisionBias and
Precision
Temperature ±0.2 °C ≤10% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Conductivity ±3 umhos/cm ≤10% N/A N/A 90-110 N/A N/A
Dissolved Oxygen .1 mg/L N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
pH ±0.2 std. unit ≤10% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Turbidity .3 NTU ≤25% ≤25% N/A 90-110 N/A N/A
Total Solids SM 2540B 5 mg/L ≤25% ≤25% N/A 80-120 N/A 5
E. coli SM 9223 B 1 cfu/100 mL ≤50% ≤20% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nitrate+Nitrite EPA 353.2 0.01-0.04 mg/L ≤25% ≤20% 75-125 80-120 ≤20% ≤20%
Ammonia (NH3) as Nitrogen (N) SM4500 NH3 G 0.02-0.05 mg/L ≤20% ≤20% 75-125 80-120 ≤20% ≤20%
Total Phosphorous EPA 365.3 0.005 – 0.01 mg/L ≤25% ≤20% 75-125 80-120 ≤20% ≤20%
Dissolved Cu, Zn EPA 200.8
0.1 ug/L Cu, 2
ug/L Zn ≤20% ≤20% 75–125 85–115 ≤20% ≤20%
Hardness, Total as CaCO3 SM2340 C 2 mg/L ≤20% ≤20% 90-110 80-120 ≤20% ≤20%
Dissolved Organic Carbon SM5310 C 0.5 mg/L ≤20% ≤20% 83-117 83-117 ≤20% ≤20%
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ASTM D1426-08B 0.2 mg/L ≤20% ≤20% 72-129 72-129 ≤20% ≤20%
Relative Percent DifferenceBias and Accuracy
Water Quality ParametersAnalysis methods
in Water³
Electrode Meter*
30
[1] The Relative percent difference (RPD) is calculated when at least one of the result values is above the practical
quantitation limit; if both values are below then the RPD is not calculated.
[2] For inorganics, the Laboratory Program Functional Guidelines state that the spike recovery limits do not apply
when the sample concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of 4 or more (EPA 2010)
[3] ERA solid LCS, “metals in Soil” the catalogue number is 540 may be needed if using a contract lab
[4] Semivolatile surrogate recoveries are compound-specific. MQOs are based on Lubliner (2014).
Grain Size on <2 mm
sieved sedimentPSEP PS
Sensitivity =
1.0%≤20% N/A N/A N/A
85–115 (spiked
blank) ERA Soil3
80–120 (As, Cd,
Cu, Pb, Zn)
79–120 (Cr)
Compound
Specific
Spiked blank
compound-
specific
50–150 50–1504
Sediment parameters
Analysis
methods in
sediment MQO
Matrix spike
duplicate
(RPD)3
Control
standard/
surrogate (%
recovery)
Bias and
accuracy
Matrix spike2
(% recovery)Reporting limit
target
Lab replicate
(RPD)1
SensitivityBias and
precision
Bias and
accuracy
Bias and
precision
Semi volatile organics
Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds
EPA 8270D SIM
(GC-MS)1-5 μg/kg dw
Compound
specific ≤40%≤40%
Metals
Total and dissolved
As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn
(0.2, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5,
0.5, 0.5) mg/kg
dw
≤20% 75–125 ≤20%EPA 200.8
Conventional Parameters
Total Organic Carbon Sensitivity=0.1% ≤20% N/A N/A 80-120PSEP PS
31
8. Sampling Procedures
Field Equipment Handling Data loggers will be deployed permanently at Trend sites and temporarily for the scheduled
water year of sampling at status sites. Stage, water temperature, and conductivity are continuous
monitoring parameters logged concurrently every 15 minutes for this study. A combination of
level loggers and conductivity/temperature loggers will be used at status sites where telemetry is
not feasible. All other sites will utilize telemetry with data loggers, pressure transducers and
conductivity/temperature probes. It is best not to disturb pressure transducers/level loggers after
deployment. Monitoring conductivity calibration and fouling, which requires retrieval of
instrumentation, is pertinent to quality control. Therefore, separate pressure transducers or level
loggers and conductivity/temperature probes will be utilized.
• Stage: Stage data will be collected by installation of a Campbell Scientific CS451 vented
pressure transducer at sites where telemetry is feasible following the manufacturer’s
instructions and approved Clark County SOP (Appendix A). HOBO MX Water Level
Loggers (MX2001-0x) will be deployed to collect stage data where telemetry is not
feasible following the manufacturer’s instructions and approved Clark County SOP.
(Campbell Scientific CS451 are available at
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/ca/manuals/cs451-cs456_man.pdf; HOBO MX Water
Level Logger are available at https://www.onsetcomp.com/files/manual_pdfs/19389-
L%20MX2001%20Manual.pdf ). Stage measurements will be logged at intervals of 15
minutes. A manual stage measurement will be collected at each monthly or every other
month field visit (Appendix A). Data will be retrieved during each field visit.
• Conductivity and Water Temperature: Conductivity and temperature data will be
collected by the installation of a CS547 conductivity/temperature probe where telemetry is
feasible and a HOBO U24 conductivity/temperature probe where telemetry is not feasible.
Both of these types of instruments will be installed and maintained following the
manufacturer’s instructions and approved Clark County SOP (Appendix A;
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/us/manuals/cs547a.pdf; those for the HOBO U24 are
available at https://www.onsetcomp.com/files/manual_pdfs/15070-J%20U24-
001%20Manual.pdf) Conductivity and temperature measurements will be logged at
intervals of 15 minutes. Data will be retrieved monthly or every other month depending on
site conditions.
All loggers will be deployed inside a 2-inch camouflage-painted PVC pipe to shade them from
sunlight and to prevent them from being found and vandalized.
Continuous in-situ data loggers will be calibrated and cleaned prior to deployment and checked
for functionality and biofouling during site visits using the manufacturer’s recommended
protocols and approved Clark County SOP (Appendix A). Each deployment location will be
photographed and have site-specific survey information documented on a standardized form
(Appendix B). For continuous measurements with on-site sensors (water temperature,
conductivity, stage), the accuracy and instrument bias of each sensor will be verified through
post-deployment calibration checks along with deployment, retrieval, and grab sample checks
collected as described in Appendix A.
32
The field crew will conduct any necessary cleaning by rinsing the loggers, outside casing, the
circulation holes and the optical eyes with fresh running water, distilled water or instrument
specific cleanser. Instrument specific brushes can be used as well as Q-tips or other non-abrasive
scrubbers. Calcium precipitation can be deposited on the pressure transducer or any portion of
the loggers. These deposits can be dissolved and released without damaging the probes using a
diluted solution of acetic or phosphoric acid (<10%).
Field Safety All crew members are responsible to ensure health and safety during the field sampling events. A
written health and safety plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of field activities. The
health and safety plan must include at a minimum: phone numbers and a communication tree for
notification should an emergency occur; maps to the nearest hospital, fire station, and/or
emergency response facility for each sampling location; and enumeration of anticipated potential
hazards (Appendix C).
All crew members must review and sign the health and safety plan during a field work kick-off
meeting. During the meeting, the Field Lead summarizes the potential hazards and ensures that
all crew members are aware of safety procedures and appropriate lines of communication. Crew
members must be instructed in proper handling of sample preservatives to avoid hazardous
situations that may occur if these chemicals are handled inappropriately.
At least two crew members must be present during all field sampling activities, however three
people improves efficiency and can be safer for wadeable stream habitat surveys.
Crews may encounter hazardous materials at site locations. Crews should not disturb or retrieve
improperly disposed hazardous materials. Instead, crews will record the finding in detail in the
field notebook, take photographs if possible and report to the LCUS Project manager who will
report the crew’s findings to appropriate authorities as soon as possible.
Field members must be familiar with the signs of heat exhaustion, heat stroke, and hypothermia,
and there should always be at least one person trained in first aid and CPR on every field crew.
First aid kits must be available at all times. Any field crew member with known allergies to bees,
other insects, poison oak, etc. will notify the crew lead. These members must take proper
precautions and instruct fellow members as to the location and use of any needed emergency
medications that they carry with them at all times.
Motor vehicles must be operated with care and in observance of all applicable laws and
regulations.
Field Safety in Wadeable Streams Common hazards in wadeable streams include slip, trip and fall hazards; submerged objects;
venomous snakes, insects and plants; and adverse weather conditions. Sampling will be
discontinued during thunderstorms.
Field crews must wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including waders (or at
a minimum neoprene booties), hats, sunglasses (or safety goggles as needed), and should
33
use sunscreen on exposed skin. When waders are worn, they must be equipped with a belt
and follow Clark County PFD requirements. Appropriate gloves must be worn when
agitating substrate for the collection of benthic macroinvertebrates.
Extreme care should be used when walking on rip rap as rocks can easily shift. Large woody
debris (LWD) must be navigated carefully to avoid falls or getting pinned between pieces of
debris.
Crew members must ensure all equipment is in safe working order.
Field Work Procedures The procedures are based on existing standard protocols (Table 7).
Before leaving for the sampling site, the field crew will conduct all appropriate preparation
including instrument calibration, data log form preparation, and field safety plan completion.
Field procedures (Table 14) should be conducted in the following order to avoid any damage or
disturbance to benthic invertebrates and other samples:
1) Site verification and layout,
2) Instantaneous stream flow measurement,
3) In-situ water measurements,
4) Water sample collection for the extended program,
5) Benthic macroinvertebrate,
6) Sediment chemistry sample collection,
7) Physical habitat condition.
Field handheld probes will be calibrated and checked for problems prior to each sample event
following the manufacturer’s recommended protocols and recorded in the field log (Appendix
A).
For sediment sampling, sediment samples will be collected and processed in a metals free room
at the lab for listed analytes in Table 6. Stainless-steel scoops and bowls utilized for sediment
sample collection will be cleaned using the following procedure. Stainless-steel sampling
implements, including spoons, bowls, and stirrers will be cleaned sequentially as follows:
1. Wash in non-phosphate detergent and hot-tap water,
2. Rinse with hot tap water,
3. Rinse with deionized water three times,
4. Air dry in clean area free of contaminants,
5. Rinse with pesticide-grade acetone or methanol if sampling for PAHs,
6. Air dry in clean area free of contaminants.
34
After drying, clean equipment will be wrapped in aluminum foil and stored in polyethylene bags
until used in the field. Sampling equipment will be dedicated to a single site. Reuse will require
cleaning as outlined in the procedure above.
Table 14. Typical timing of on-site field activities for wadeable streams.
Detailed procedures for site verification and field sampling are listed in Table 7.
At the end of the monitoring period, the field crew will retrieve data from the deployed loggers
for all three continuous parameters. The field crew will conduct any necessary cleaning,
calibration or re-installation of loggers at the next round of status sites. The storage capacity,
battery, electrical connections and tubing will be checked and, if necessary, replaced.
Field Log A field log with appropriately detailed notes will be used to record irreplaceable information for
each site visit. The field logs will be either:
1. Bound, waterproof notebooks with pre-numbered pages. Use permanent, waterproof ink
or pencil for all entries.
or
2. Electronic field logs that demonstrate equivalent security and durability to a waterproof,
bound notebook.
Example field forms are provided in Appendices B and D. Field form entries will include but are
not limited to:
• Name and location of activity
• All field personnel, and specifying the recorder’s name
• Sequence of events
• Any changes or deviations from the QAPP
1 2 3 4 5 6
Site verification and layout A A
In-situ flow measurement B B
Water chemistry sampling C C
Macroinvertebrate A,B A,B A,B A,B
Sediment chemistry C C C
Physical habitat A,B,C A,B,C A,B,C
Data retrieval and maintenance of data logger C C C
Activity Person Hours since arrival
35
• Environmental conditions at time of monitoring activity
• Date, time, location, ID, and description of each sample
• Field instrument calibration procedures and documentation
• Field measurements
• Type and number of QC samples collected
• Unusual circumstances that might affect interpretation of results
Forms will include the station visit/maintenance sheet, meter calibration, and chain-of-custody
forms. All errors or typos will be crossed out and rewritten by the technician who recorded the
data. All corrections will be initialed and dated when made. Do not use correction fluid or tape.
Paper documents will be stored in an organized central filing location.
9. Quality Control
Field Equipment Decontamination Equipment used in the field for collection or processing of sediment and surface water samples
will be decontaminated using Ecology’s SOP, Decontamination of Sampling Equipment for Use
in Collecting Toxic Chemical Samples (Friese, 2014). Field equipment will be maintained at the
recommended frequency specified by each manufacturer.
After conducting field work, field staff will:
• Inspect and clean all equipment by removing any visible soil, vegetation, vertebrates,
invertebrates, plants, algae or sediment. If necessary, a scrub brush could be used then
rinsed with clean water either from the site or brought for that purpose. The process will
be continued until all equipment is clean.
• Drain all water in samplers or other equipment that may harbor water from the site. This
step will take place before leaving the sampling site or at an interim site. If cleaning after
leaving the sampling site, no debris will leave the equipment and potentially spread
invasive species during transit or cleaning.
• Assess the possibility of invasive species contamination of both protective gear and
sampling equipment, including boats, rafts, and other water-borne devices. Ecology’s
SOP EAP070 (Parsons et al., 2018) addresses invasive species transport and
contamination.
Field Replicate Samples Grab and composited field replicate samples will be collected at a rate of 10% of the total
samples collected for monitoring each year; composite split for sediment samples, simultaneous
grab samples for water quality parameters and an additional composite sample collected for
macroinvertebrates. In-situ parameters measured in the field sample also will be measured in the
replicate sample for that particular site. Field replicates will be labeled similar to other samples,
and each replicate sample will have its own unique identification number. These replicate
36
samples will be submitted blind to the laboratory with all other field samples. Table 15 shows the
schedule, control limits, and corrective actions for field replicate samples.
Table 15. Field quality control schedule for water quality, sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrate samples.
Sample Storage and Preservation Holding times are the maximum allowable length of time between sample collection and
laboratory manipulation. Holding times are different for each analyte and are in place to
maximize analytical accuracy and representativeness. Each sample collected will be packaged in
a container and labeled accordingly. If necessary, staff will coordinate with the analytical
laboratory to ensure samples can be transported, received, and processed during non-business
hours. Sample containers will be transported or sent by the field team to the analytical
Field Sample Collected Number and frequency Control Limit Corrective Action
Composited benthic
macroinvertebrate field
replicate
One replicate sample each
year
Qualitative control –
Assess representativeness,
comparability, and field
variability
Review procedures; alter if
needed
Composited sediment field
replicates
10% of the total number of
samples each year
Qualitative control –
Assess representativeness,
comparability, and field
variability
Review procedures; alter if
needed
Grab water quality field
replicates
10% of the total number of
samples each year
Qualitative control –
Assess representativeness,
comparability, and field
variability
Review procedures; alter if
needed
Field water quality transfer
blankAt least one sample a year
Blank analyte
concentration should be
below the reporting limit
Compare blanks for analyte
to determine whether the
sampling process is the
source of contamination; re-
evaluate decontamination
procedures; evaluate
results greater than 5x
blank concentrations
Other blank samples for
determining a
contamination source
As needed
Blank analyte
concentration should be
below the reporting limit
Compare results from
separated blanks to isolate
the source of
contamination; evaluate
results greater than 5x
blank concentrations
37
laboratory, following established sample handling and chain-of-custody procedures. At the
laboratory, samples may be further divided for analysis or storage.
Table 16 details sizes and types of sample containers recommended for transporting sample
media, sample preservation requirements, and maximum sample holding times prior to
laboratory analysis.
38
Table 16. Sample containers, preservation, and holding times.
Quality Control for Macroinvertebrates Detailed quality control procedure for macroinvertebrates (stream benthos) is described in
Standard Operating Procedure EAP073 (Table 7). QC procedures require macroinvertebrate
sorting efficiency and taxonomic accuracy and precision checks.
Group Analysis MatrixRecommended
QuantityContainer
Holding
TimePreservative
Cool to ≤6°C
Do NOT freeze or dry
Sediment Metals Sediment 50 g4 oz glass or HDPE jar
with Teflon-lined lids6 months Cool to ≤6°C
Sediment PAHs Sediment 100 g8 oz glass or HDPE jar
with Teflon-lined lids
14 days; 1
year if frozenCool to ≤6°C; or freeze at ≤-18°C
Macro-invertebrates Benthic 1.0 L1.0 L Wide mouth
polyethylene jarN/A
Field preserved with 95% ethanol. Stored
in quiescent location
Total Solids Water 250 mL250 mL w/m poly
bottle7 days Cool to ≤6°C
Hardness Water 100 mL250 mL w/m poly
bottle6 months
H2SO4 to pH <2, cool to ≤6°C.
preservation in field or lab
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
H2SO4 or HCl to pH <2, preservation in
field
Cool to ≤4°C
H2SO4 or HCl to pH <2, preservation in
field
Cool to ≤4°C
Dissolved Metals Water 250 mL
250 mL poly bottle
with Teflon or
polypropylene lid
6 months
Filter (0.45 um) within 15 minutes of
collection; then add HNO3
⁸
to pH <2 ,
E. coli Water 125 mL 125 mL plastic bottle 24 hoursx Fill bottle to shoulder, Cool to ≤4°Cx
H2SO4 or HCl to pH <2, preservation in
field
Cool to ≤4°C
125 mL
Extended
Water125 mL w/m poly
bottle28 days
28 days
Ammonia (NH3) as (N)
Total Phosphorous (TP) Water 60 mL(1) 125 mL clear w/m
poly bottle
Nitrate (NO3-) + Nitrite (NO2-) Water 125 mL(1) 125 mL clear w/m
poly bottle48 hours
6 months
Base
Grain Size Sediment 100 g 8 oz plastic jar
39
Laboratory Quality Control Procedures Contract laboratories will make every effort to meet sample holding times and target reporting
limits for all parameters. Laboratory QC procedures and results will be closely monitored
throughout the duration of the sampling. Measurement quality objectives for laboratory samples
are listed in Table 17.
QC procedures for biological samples are currently limited to field replicates precision and
laboratory duplicates for accuracy for benthic macroinvertebrates. Contract laboratories will
make every effort to ensure accurate identification of specimens.
The schedule for laboratory QC samples is listed in Table 17. These samples will include, at a
minimum, the types of QC samples listed and described below:
Laboratory duplicates: Laboratory duplicate samples will be analyzed regularly to verify that
the laboratory’s analytical methods are maintaining their precision. The laboratory should
perform “random” duplicate selection on submitted samples that meet volume requirements.
After a sample is randomly selected, the laboratory should homogenize the sample and divide it
into two identical “split” samples. To verify method precision, identical analyses of these lab
splits should be performed and reported. Some parameters may require a double volume for the
parameter to be analyzed as the laboratory duplicate. Matrix spike duplicates may be used to
satisfy frequencies for laboratory duplicates.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (ms/msd): Matrix spike samples are triple-volume
field samples to which method-specific target analytes are added or spiked into two of the field
samples, and then analyzed under the same conditions as the field sample. A matrix spike
provides a measure of the recovery efficiency and accuracy for the analytical methods being
used. Matrix spikes can be analyzed in duplicate to determine method accuracy and precision.
Matrix spikes will be prepared and analyzed at a rate of 1/20 (5% of total) samples collected or
one for each analytical batch, whichever is most frequent.
Blanks: Laboratory blanks are useful for instrument calibrations and method verifications, as
well as for determining whether any contamination is present in laboratory handling and
processing of samples.
Laboratory standards: Laboratory standards (reference standards) are objects or substances that
can be used as a measurement base for similar objects or substances. In many instances,
laboratories using digital or optical equipment will purchase from an outside accredited source a
solid, powdered, or liquid standard to determine high-level or low-level quantities of a specific
analyte. These standards are accompanied by acceptance criteria and are used to test the accuracy
of the laboratory’s methods. Laboratory standards are typically used after calibration of an
instrument and prior to sample analysis.
Surrogate and internal standards: Surrogate standards are used to process and analyze
extractable organic compounds (PAHs). A surrogate standard is added before extraction, and it
monitors the efficiency of the extraction method. Internal standards are added to organic
compounds and metal digests to verify instrument operation when using inductively coupled
40
plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-
MS) analyses.
Method blanks: Method blanks are designed to determine whether contamination sources may
be associated with laboratory processing and analysis. Method blanks are prepared in the
laboratory using the same reagents, solvents, glassware, and equipment as the field samples.
These method blanks will accompany the field samples through analysis.
Instrument blank: An instrument blank is used to calibrate analytical equipment used in the
laboratory’s procedures. Instrument blanks usually consist of laboratory-pure water and any
other method-appropriate reagents.
41
Table 17. Schedule for laboratory Quality Control samples.
Quality control
sample1
Analysis
type Frequency2 Corrective action
Laboratory
Duplicates
Metals 5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch (method-specific)
Evaluate procedure; reanalyze or qualify
affected data Organics
Matrix Spikes (full
constituent list)
Metals 5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch
Evaluate procedure and assess potential
matrix effects; reanalyze or qualify data
Organics 5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch
Evaluate duplicates and surrogate
recoveries and assess matrix effects;
evaluate or qualify affected data
Matrix Spike
Duplicates3
Metals and
Organics
At least 1 sample per year;
Metals can be run either by MSD
or lab duplicates at otherwise; 5%
of total samples, minimum 1 per
batch
Evaluate procedure and assess potential
matrix effects; reanalyze or qualify data
Method Blanks
Metals
5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch (method-specific)
Blank concentration may be used to
define a new reporting limit. Evaluate
procedure; ID contaminant source;
reanalyze samples if blanks are within
10x concentration. No action necessary
if samples are >10x blank concentrations
Organics
Spiked (or
Fortified) Blanks
Metals and
Organics
5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch (primarily water)
Evaluate matrix spike recoveries; assess
efficiency of extraction method; flag
affected data
References (lab
control standard,
lab control sample,
or standard
reference
materials)
Metals
5% of total samples, minimum 1
per batch (spiked blank).
Evaluate lab duplicates/matrix spike
recoveries; assess efficiency of
extraction method; evaluate or qualify
affected data Organics
Surrogates Organics Surrogates frequency is 100% Evaluate results; qualify or reanalyze or
re-prep/reanalyze samples.
Internal Standards Metals and
Organics
Internal Standard frequency is
100% for GC/MS and ICPMS
methods
Evaluate results; dilute samples, reassign
internal standards or flag data.
1 Quality control samples may be from different projects for frequencies on a per-batch basis. 2 Frequencies may be determined from the study number of samples collected by the permittee. 3 The lab may use either a matrix spike duplicate or laboratory duplicate to evaluate precision based on the method.
42
10. Data Management
The LCUS Data Coordinator will be responsible for data QA, data entry, and data export and
will ensure effective data management to support the routine data analysis and ultimately ensure
a successful monitoring program. The Data Coordinator will also respond to data requests.
EIM and WHM Database Preparation Before sampling begins, the LCUS Project Manager or Data Coordinator will coordinate with
SAM Scientist and Ecology’s WHM Data Coordinator to assign the study identification number
and site IDs.
Field Data Collection and Transfer Template data sheets and field log are included in Appendix D. These forms will be reviewed by
the LCUS Project Manager to ensure that all field crews are collecting the same data in the same
way. The forms identify the LCUS Project Manager as the recipient of the final forms.
Field notebooks and 3-ring binders will contain all field activity data, as follows—
• completed data field/maintenance sheets
• chain of custody forms
Field staff is responsible for updating this information and storing it in appropriate binders
securely located and available to the Project Manager.
Continuous 15-minute stream stage, temperature and conductivity measurements are recorded on
data loggers and either downloaded on field computers or telemetered from the field monitoring
sites onto a central computer for data storage and processing. The files are then appended and
converted for storage, analyses, and editing utilizing commercially available Aquatic informatics
Aquarius software. The Project Manager, or designee, is responsible for acquiring the data in a
timely manner and for maintaining the project database, which will be backed up regularly.
Continuous 15-minute will be uploaded to Ecology’s EIM database under study identification
code SAM_LCUC.
All field data sheets will be kept in an organized manner. The project manager will keep the
original field data and a copy will be sent to the data manager. Post-processed watershed health
data will be finalized and incorporated into electronic forms and uploaded to the Watershed
Health Monitoring (WHM) database under study identification code SAM_LCU.
Laboratory Data Laboratory data will be sent to the LCUS Project Manager and Data Coordinator directly from
each laboratory following completion of each set of analyses for a sampling event. Reporting
times may vary depending on holding time and analytical methods but should not exceed six
months from the documented sampling date.
Laboratory reports will be reviewed by the Data Coordinator for errors or missing data. The Data
Manager and Project Manager will implement corrective actions if needed.
43
Finalized electronic laboratory data will be loaded to Ecology’s EIM database under study
identification code SAM_LCU by the Data Coordinator with the assistance of Ecology’s EIM
Data Coordinator and saved in the Clean Water Division (CWD) water quality database.
Watershed Health Data If the permittees choose to collect the entire set of physical habitat watershed health parameters,
Ecology will provide electronic field data collection software. The electronic field form (e-form),
if used, will assist Clark Co to (1) assure completeness in the field for benthos and habitat
monitoring and (2) more easily and efficiently load this data to Ecology’s WHM database in
EIM under study identification code SAM_LCU. Use of the electronic form greatly reduces the
time for review and quality assurance/quality control in transferring the data. If using the e-form,
Clark County will work with Ecology’s WHM data coordinator to ensure all data required to
successfully utilize the e-form are collected. An electronic tablet or laptop is needed for field use
of the e-form.
If the permittees decide to collect fewer habitat parameters than required to successfully utilize
the e-form. Data in e-form will be submitted after each sampling to WHM database for WHM
data coordinators review and approval.
Data Storage All field forms, photographs, electronic data, and laboratory data will be stored by the LCUS
Project Manager in an organized filing system for electronic or paper files. Location,
measurement, and sample result data will be evaluated through the data finalization process.
Results judged to be acceptable after all such steps are required to be entered and be available in
Ecology’s EIM database.
Continuous data will be stored in Aquarius time series software and uploaded into the EIM
database yearly following data finalization procedures.
Macroinvertebrate data will be stored in the Puget Sound Stream Benthos database (PSSB)
yearly following data finalization procedures by Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc. under study
identification code SAM_LCU.
All laboratory data will be provided in an electronic data deliverable (EDD) format. After receipt
of data, internal processing and data finalization, the data will be uploaded into the EIM database
annually by Clark County’s Data Coordinator with assistance from Ecology’s EIM Coordinator.
44
11. Data Verification and Validation
Clark County will verify all data to evaluate the completeness, correctness, and
conformance/compliance of the data set against the method and other requirements.
LCUS Field Lead Field staff will verify field results after measuring and before leaving the site. They will keep
field notes to meet the requirements for documentation of field measurements. The field lead will
ensure:
• Field-collected data are consistent, reasonable, and complete, with no errors or
omissions.
• Instrument measurement and converted values are within the acceptable
instrumentation error limits and expected range of values.
• Methods and protocols specified in this QAPP were followed.
• Field QC processes specified in this QAPP were followed.
LCUS Project Manager The LCUS Project Manager will verify:
• Field-collected data are consistent, correct, and complete, with no errors or omissions.
• Results of applicable QC samples accompany the sample results.
• Established criteria for QC results were met.
• Data qualifiers are properly assigned where necessary.
• Data specified in the Sampling Process Design were obtained.
• Methods and protocols specified in this QAPP were followed.
• Field forms are complete and correct.
If a laboratory suspects field blank contamination, the laboratory’s project manager will notify
the Field Lead and the LCUS Project Manager. The sample results will be reviewed by the
LCUS Project Manager and Field Lead to determine if samples associated with the field blanks
should be qualified based on the contamination. Sample results will be flagged with a J if they
are less than, or equal to, 5 times the field blank concentration.
For macroinvertebrates, the laboratory will verify all taxonomic results prior to reporting and
submittal to PSSB. Ecology EAP staff and SAM Scientist will verify all taxonomic data
uploaded in PSSB and then submit them into EIM.
For continuous measurements with on-site sensors (water temperature, conductivity, stage), the
accuracy and instrument bias of each sensor will be evaluated through post-deployment
calibration checks along with deployment, field verification and retrieval. Once continuous stage,
conductivity and temperature have been uploaded to Aquarius, corrections will be applied to the
dataset using Aquarius software. Corrections needed may consist of cleaning, calibration, or
instrumental drift corrections.
45
At least 10% of field and laboratory data entry will be verified against field forms and laboratory
reports prior to final validation in the electronic database to verify consistency. All electronic
versions of data will be re-verified using computer programs (e.g., R or DataAccess) by the Data
Manager before submitting to EIM.
Laboratory Data Verification For the laboratory measurement of sediment PAH’s and metals, bias and precision values should
be less than 20-40% depending on the indicator and will be checked through replicate samples
based on the MQOs in section 7. All accredited laboratories used for the analyses will have their
own approved internal quality-control procedures, which will be confirmed and documented by
the LCUS Project Manager prior to sample submission.
If substantial discrepancies in the data are found, there are two options for correction,
depending on when the problem is identified:
1. If the problem is identified before the end of the sampling period (June 1 to September 30
for sediment chemistry and benthic indicators; the end of the month for extended
parameters), a repeat site visit will be made to re-collect the sample. This may occur if the
data set is incomplete or incorrectly collected. Due to the inter-related nature of chemical
and biological conditions, problems identified in the chemical or biological data should be
addressed by again collecting the entire suite of chemical or biological indicators. Before
the second sampling, the LCUS Project Manager, Principal Investigator, and Field Lead
must review in detail the applicable methods and procedures in this document (including
references to Status and Trends Monitoring of Small Streams in the Puget Lowlands
Ecoregion QAPP (Lubliner, 2014)) to ensure understanding of the protocols. Equipment
should be cleaned and recalibrated and checked for proper function.
2. If the problem is identified after the sampling period, the data should be flagged and the
problem explained in a comment in the database. This will allow both internal and external
users of these data to know the limitations of how these data may be used in projects. If the
data are incomplete, or if some data standard was not met, the data may not be used to
meet the objectives of the study design.
In either case, the Project Manager will notify the SAM Scientist and the other permittees as
soon as possible after learning of such a problem and which of the above corrective actions will
be taken.
For continuous parameters, if identified discrepancies are found that indicate sensor or data-
logger malfunction, a site visit to correct the problem must occur as soon as possible. Suspect
data prior to that time should be clearly flagged in the database and not used in subsequent
analyses.
If any errors are found they will be corrected, and the LCUS Project Manager will check all of
the remaining associated field and laboratory data spreadsheet files. This process will be repeated
until all errors are eliminated.
46
Permanent records of all environmental data will be made available through online archives (i.e.,
EIM).
12. Data Usability and Data Analyses
Data Quality (Usability) Assessment The data usability assessment follows data verification and validation. This involves an overall
assessment of the data package to determine whether the quality objectives have been met for the
intended use of the data as well as how to treat non-detects and other issues. The LCUS Project
Manager and Principal Investigator examine the complete data set to determine completeness
and compliance with standard procedures outlined in SOPs using professional judgement.
Determining if Project Objectives were met Following data verification and validation, the data assessment will compare the data package
with project objectives established at the beginning of the project. If the results do not meet those
criteria, this will be explicitly stated in the annual reporting. Based upon data accuracy criteria,
some data may be discarded. If this is found to be necessary, then the problems associated with
data collection, reasons data were discarded, and potential ways to correct sampling problems
will be reported to the SAM Scientist.
In some cases, project objectives may be modified. If that is judged to be necessary, the
justification for modification, problems associated with collecting and analyzing data, as well as
potential solutions will be reported to the SAM Scientist and discussed with the permittees. Such
adaptive management of this QAPP must be approved by Ecology and the LC stakeholders.
Treatment of Non-Detects in Data Analysis In the event that non-detect values from the laboratory become an issue and impede the ability to
perform the study (data censorship), statistical methods will be used to assign values to non-
detects. Methods for performing statistical analyses on non-detect data are found in Table 5 of
Western Washington NPDES Phase I Stormwater Permit, Final S8.D Data Characterization
2009-2013 (Hobbs et al., 2015). Some individual parameters may be detected less frequently
than others and may therefore be considered a low priority. Any non-detect issues and statistical
analysis performed during the study period will be detailed in the final status and trends report.
Data Analysis The LCUS Project Manager is responsible for analyzing the data and providing reports listed in
the Table 2. Staff writing the report must know the caveats and limitations of the data and
corresponding analyses and be informed by field crew members as to special conditions
encountered during sampling. This will increase the chances that the data are properly
interpreted.
47
Expected data analyses for the LCUS include:
Calculation of flow metrics: Using the continuous stage data for each active site, calculate
flow metrics to determine flow alteration indicators known to correlate to biological
conditions in small streams, including but not limited to flow reversals, TQmean, and Richards-
Baker Index (RBI). These indicators will be calculated and reported as described in
DeGasperi et al. (2009) and Booth and Konrad (2017).
Descriptive statistics summary: Describe basic features of the data, distribution and
frequency of values, detection frequency of each parameter including water quality,
watershed health, physical habitat, sediment and hydrology derived indicators. Measured
values can be split by meaningful group variables (or subgroups) and displayed by groups.
When comparing values between groups, statistical analysis such as T-test, ANOVA or
linear-model or nonparametric analyses will be conducted to confirm the significance of
differences or any patterns. For an example, see section 2.0 in the final report on the 2015
SAM Puget lowland streams status assessment (DeGasperi et al., 2018).
Multivariate statistical analyses: Multivariate statistical analyses may identify key status
and trends drivers. Other analyses including multivariate ordination and other learning
processes (e,g., tree-based method) can also be done. Basic exploratory data analyses may
also be utilized given limitations of the dataset.
Status assessment: The assessment of stream conditions will be conducted either by
developing thresholds or by comparing to known criteria such as state water or sediment
quality standards, and sediment screening level. Data from Lower Columbia regional sites
gathered by Department of Ecology or Oregon Department of Environmental Quality can
also serve as reference (least-disturbed) condition to assess the status of target streams and
the region. When standards or reference conditions are not available, threshold values can be
set using peer-reviewed ecological literature. For literature-derived values that provide a
meaningful comparison, see section 2.6 in the final report on the 2015 SAM Puget lowland
streams status assessment (DeGasperi et al., 2018).
Trend assessment: Trend assessment will be done following the fourth year of data
monitoring and every five years thereafter.
Adaptive Management of this QAPP If a need is identified for adaptive changes to the monitoring protocols or data analysis
approaches specified in this QAPP, the proposed revision(s) to this QAPP must be detailed in a
separate memo. The memo will provide justification for the change(s) and the expected results
and impacts to data usability for the monitoring that has been conducted to date and that will be
conducted in the future. Any proposed changes must be approved by the SAM Scientist prior to
implementation. At the discretion of the SAM Scientist, the approval process for substantive
changes to this QAPP may include discussion(s) with Permittees and other interested parties.
For changes to the study design (selected indicators, or frequency of their measurement), the
memo needs to be submitted to the SAM Scientist before the field season in which the changes
48
are expected to be implemented, and with sufficient time for review, discussion, and approval by
stakeholders.
49
13. Reporting
The LCUS Project Manager will prepare and submit annual reports and trend reports as
described in the IAA between Ecology and Clark County.
LCUS annual reports will typically include summary of complete results of the prior water year.
Reports will provide discussion regarding flow indicators, benthic macroinvertebrate indicators,
habitat conditions, sediment chemistry and water chemistry (if measured). Reports will include
status of streams by comparing of LCUS findings to appropriate benchmarks for each indicator.
Each annual monitoring report will include summary statistics, descriptive maps and explanatory
variables assessment.
Trend reports will be completed every five years, beginning after four water years of monitoring.
Trend reports will describe overall regional trends from inception of monitoring to the current
year and identify drivers of stream health status and trends. Trend reports will include a section
on each of the types of data analysis listed in section 12 and the Principal Investigator’s findings
and conclusions from having conducted these analyses.
Review of Reports Draft reports will be shared for review by a technical review committee consisting of permittees,
SAM scientist and other interested parties. After addressing the technical review committee’s
comments, Clark County will complete the final report.
Distribution of Reports The LCUS Project Manager will send electronic (both MS Word and pdf) and paper copies of all
reports to the SAM Scientist. Links to online copies of the final reports and other deliverables
will be posted on the SAM webpage.
Electronic copies of reports will be posted on the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring
Partnership (PNAMP) website to reach a broad regional audience. The LCUS Project Manager
will provide PNAMP with pdf copies of all final reports to be posted on PNAMP webpages.
Clark County will send email notifications, with links to the online reports, to the full list of LC
HSTM interested parties and to other interested parties identified during the implementation
phase of program development; PNAMP staff will assist with this distribution.
50
14. Audits
Field, laboratory, and other audits ensure that QAPP elements are implemented correctly. The
quality of the data must be determined to be acceptable, and corrective actions must be
implemented in a timely manner. There are two components of the auditing process:
• The Technical Systems Audit is conducted during the study. Staff and the Field Lead
evaluate qualitative conformance to the procedures discussed in this QAPP. These
evaluations include field collection activities, sample transport, laboratory processing,
and data management components of the program.
• Proficiency Testing is the quantitative determination of an analyte in a blind standard
to evaluate the proficiency of the analyst or laboratory. This audit is included for
analysis of water quality samples as a routine procedure in the accredited laboratory.
These audits are conducted during the study so that any necessary corrective actions can be
implemented early in the project. Corrective actions will be led by the LCUS Project Manager
and reviewed and approved by the SAM Scientist as soon as possible. Audits at the end of the
study by the project lead or partners are necessary as part of data usability assessment and
uploading to the EIM database. At any point, an independent party (e.g., state agency staff)
could be identified by the Project Manager to conduct a study audit.
51
15. References
Booth, D. and C.P. Konrad. 2017. Hydrologic metrics for status-and trend monitoring in urban
and urbanizing watersheds. Hydrological processes 31: 4507-4519.
Cusimano, R., G. Merritt, R. Plotnikoff, C. Wiseman, C. Smith (WSCC), and WDFW, 2006.
Status and Trends Monitoring for Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery: Quality Assurance
Monitoring Plan, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 06-
03-203.
DeGasperi, C.L., Berge, H.B., Whiting, K.R., Burkey, J.J., Cassin J.L., Fuerstenberg, R.R. 2009.
Linking hydrologic alteration to biological impairment in urbanizing streams of the Puget
Lowland, Washington, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45:512-533.
DeGasperi C., R.W. Sheibley, B. Lubliner, C.A. Larson, K. Song, and L.S. Fore. 2018.
Stormwater Action Monitoring Status and Trends Study of Puget Lowland Ecoregion Streams:
Evaluation of the First Year (2015) of monitoring Data. Prepared by King County in
collaboration with the Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Puget Sound Partnership. Science and Technical Support Section, Water and Land Resources
Division, Seattle, Washington.
Dutch, M., V. Partridge, S. Weakland, K. Welch, E. Long, 2010. 2010 Addendum to Quality
Assurance Project Plan: The Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program Sediment
Monitoring Component. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Publication No. 09-03-121-Addendum1.
EPA, 2010. Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data
Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-540-R-10-011. January 2010.
Friese, M., 2014. Standard Operating Procedures for Decontaminating Field Equipment for
Sampling Toxics in the Environment Version 1.0. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA. SOP EAP090.
Hobbs, W., B. Lubliner, N. Kale, and E. Newell. 2015. Western Washington NPDES Phase I
Stormwater Permit, Final Data Characterization 2009-2013. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No.15-03-001.
Johnson, A., 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Toxics in Stormwater Runoff from Puget
Sound Boatyards. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 05-
03-118.
Lubliner, B. 2014. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Status and Trends Monitoring of Small
Streams in the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion for Monitoring Conducted using Pooled RSMP Funds
contributed by Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permittees, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 14-10-054.
52
Parsons J., Hallock D., Seiders K., Ward B., Coffin C., Newell E., Deligeannis C., Welch K.
2018. Standard Operating Procedure EPA070 Version 2.2. Minimize the spread of invasive
species. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Stillwater Sciences. 2016a. Lower Columbia Region Monitoring Implementation Plan. Prepared
by Stillwater Sciences, Portland, Oregon for Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Longview,
Washington.
Stillwater Sciences. 2016b. Habitat status and trends monitoring in the Lower Columbia Region:
Quality Assurance Project Plan. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Portland, Oregon for Lower
Columbia Fish Recovery Board and the City of Longview, Washington.
Swanson, T., 2007. Standard Operating Procedures for Hydrolab® DataSonde® and MiniSonde®
Multiprobes. EAP 033, Version 1.0. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Approved June 19, 2007.
Ward, W., 2007. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection, Processing, and Analysis of
Stream Samples, Version 1.3. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. SOP
Number EAP034. Approved October 26, 2007.
53
Appendix A: Procedure for Conductivity Maintenance, Calibration, and Fouling Drift
Trend site calibration and fouling drift correction for Campbell Scientific CS547A-L
Conductivity and Temperature Probe:
The CS547A-L has been factory calibrated and does not need to be recalibrated under normal
use unless the diameter of the measurement cavity changes because of corrosion or abrasion
(Campbell Scientific). However, a field calibration may be performed in accordance to
manufacture instructions 8.1.4.
To check for drift and/or fouling the following procedure will occur during deployment (Steps 1-
2, and 7) and a site visit (Steps 1-7) approximately every 2 months: 1. A calibrated, NIST temperature checked, ProDSS water quality meter will be placed into the
stream alongside the conduit containing the CS547A-L and allowed to equilibrate (See Below for
ProDSS calibration SOP).
2. Measurements will be recorded at the same time from both the CS547A-L and ProDSS
conductivity and temperature. Remember that data is collected every 15 minutes. Make sure
that you are recording on a 15 minute interval.
3. The CS547A-L will then be removed from the conduit and cleaned per manufacturer’s
instructions.
4. Flush the conduit with stream water to remove built up silt and debris impeding the flow of
water through the conduit.
5. The CS547A-L will then be placed back into the conduit and allowed to equilibrate.
6. A measurement will then be recorded for both the CS547A-L and ProDSS conductivity and
temperature. Remember that data is collected every 15 minutes. Make sure that you are
recording on a 15 minute interval.
7. These measurements will be analyzed back in the office using Aquarius software to correct
calibration if greater than 10 % and fouling drift.
Status site calibration and fouling drift correction for HOBO U24 Conductivity and Temperature
Logger:
The HOBO U24 conductivity logger measures actual conductivity and temperature. Post data
processing will yield Specific conductance data. Calibration of the HOBO U24 is performed in
accordance with the manufacture’s manual.
To check for drift and/or fouling the following procedure will occur during deployment (Steps
1-2, 8) and a site visit (Steps 1-8) approximately every 2 months: 1. A calibrated, NIST temperature checked, ProDSS water quality meter will be placed into the
stream alongside the conduit containing the HOBO U24 and allowed to equilibrate (See Below
for ProDSS calibration SOP).
2. Measurements will be recorded for the ProDSS conductivity and temperature. Remember that
data is collected every 15 minutes. Make sure that you are recording on a 15 minute interval.
(These measurements will be compared to the HOBO U24 measurement readings back in the
office using HOBOware PRO Conductivity Assistant software for calibration drift.)
54
3. The HOBO U24 will then be removed from the conduit and cleaned per manufacturer’s
instructions.
4. A data download will be performed.
5. Flush the conduit with stream water to remove built up silt and debris impeding the flow of
water through the conduit.
6. The HOBO U24 will then be redeployed into the same position within the conduit and allowed to
equilibrate.
7. A measurement will then be recorded ProDSS conductivity and temperature. Remember that
data is collected every 15 minutes. Make sure that you are recording on a 15 minute interval.
(This measurement will be compared to the HOBO U24 measurement reading back in the office
using HOBO PRO Conductivity Assistant software for fouling drift)
8. These measurements will be analyzed back in the office using Aquarius software to correct
calibration if greater than 3 % and fouling drift.
Procedure for Stage Maintenance and Drift
Trend site stage for Campbell Scientific CS451 Pressure Transducer:
The CS451 has been factory calibrated and drift will be corrected using on offset calculation
factoring in sensor zero offset, installation, related datum, and manual staff plate measurements.
To check for drift and/or fouling the following procedure will occur during a site visit
approximately every 2 months: 1. Take a manual stage measurement.
2. Drift will be compensated by taking manual readings of stage plates for the calculation of offset
when greater than 0.03 ft. This offset calculation will be entered into LoggerNet or PC400
software
Status site stage for HOBO MX Water level logger (MX2001-0x):
The HOBO MX2001-01 has been factory calibrated. This logger records temperature data,
absolute pressure, and barometric pressure. Absolute pressure will be converted to water level
using barometric pressure compensation. The water level at each site will then be tied to a datum
to calculate stage.
To check for drift and/or fouling the following procedure will occur during a site visit
approximately every 2 months: 1. Take a manual measurement of the stage. Drift will be compensated by taking manual readings
of stage when greater than 0.02 ft.
2. A data download will be performed.
3. Manual stage measurements will be compared to logger data for offset calculation.
Calibration SOP for ProDSS
Temperature: Recalibration by laboratory is necessary if off by 0.2°C.
• Fill bucket with tap water.
• Place sonde in bucket and let acclimate for 5 to 10 minutes.
• Use NIST thermometer to verify temperature reading.
• Record temperature readings.
55
Conductivity: One point calibration. Recalibration is necessary if off by ±3 µS/cm.
• Rinse sonde with tap and then two more rinses with conductivity standards
• Fill calibration cup to the second line (top line) (this is because the conductivity probe has two
vent holes further up the probe where the sensors are located)
• Press calibration button, conductivity, and then Sp Conductivity
• Highlight calibration value and input µS/cm form the standard that will be used. Usually 146.9
µS/cm
• Accept calibration once reading has stabilized.
• Record reading and post calibration reading.
56
Appendix B: Monitoring Site Set-Up Field Form
Date
Stream Reach Type
where gage is located
Batteries
Antenna
Solar Panel Controler
Stage probe
Modem
Data Logger
Solar Panel
CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, CLEAN WATER DIVISION
Site Information Form
Station Name Site Type Trend or Status
Serial Number
STATION NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS
Station #
Date of Site Set Up
Equipment at Gage
Site Conditon
Conductivity probe
Temperature probe
57
Appendix C: Health and Safety Plan
Health and Safety Plan Phone Numbers
Jeff Schnabel, Clark County Clean Water Interim Division Manager
564-397-4583
Scott Gage, Clark County Safety & Health Coordinator (Risk Management)
564-397-1606
Chad Hoxeng, Natural Resource Specialist III
564-397-4018
Bob Hutton, Natural Resource Specialist III
564-397-4868
Marlena Milosevich Natural Resource Specialist III
564-397-4282
Ben Joner, Natural Resource Specialist III
564-397-5874
Problems locating someone within Clark County? Call:
564-397-2446 (or just 2446 from a county extension)
Equipment Services Direct Line
564-397-2301
58
Communication Tree for Emergency
59
Anticipated potential hazards See appendix: Natural Resource Specialist job Hazard Analysis
60
61
62
63
Appendix D: Monitoring Site Field Form
Water
Temp (°C)
Air Temp
(°C)
Offset (pre) Offset (post) Staff EDL/U20 EDL EDL
METER EDL/U24 METER EDL/U24 METER EDL/U24 METER EDL/U24
Entered by:
Initial Readings After Cleaning Readings
Conductivity Temperature °C Conductivity Temperature (°C)
Time
Stage Conductivity/Temp
STATION NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS
Time
Station #
Date
Gage operating Yes No
CONDUCTIVITY AND TEMPERATURE READINGS
Time
Stage (ft)
GAGE READINGS
Battery Voltage
Watch time EDL time
CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, CLEAN WATER DIVISION
Crest Gage (ft)
Station Name
Data download Yes No
Staff
CSG
Stick
G.H.
Stage recorder Type
Conductivity Type
Site Type Trend or Status
